![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I moved the page back to 'Off' following Wikipedia:WikiProject_List_of_Television_Episodes guidelines. Off is not a preposition here it is part of a two word verb so should remain capitilised. Discordance 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why they don't like Roger Ebert and make fun of him in this episode?-- 198.105.45.201 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The description of Dr. Adams' pronuncation of "planetarium" is wrong. He doesn't say "planeh'arium", he says "planet arium" with a distinct stop after the t, as if he were talking about a planet named "Arium", as in "Welcome to the planet Arium". 70.232.82.89 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Dr.T.
I'm removing the sentence "Also, viewers can see an alien during the scene when Cartman's mother tells him not to pick his nose." I've just watched the scene several times and I see no alien. Mildly amusing vandalism? Eggsyntax ( talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the strong wording of the pop culture reference. The 'entire' episode is not 'directly' based on a Star Trek episode. While this episode is based on a Star Trek episode it has many scenes and elements that have nothing to do with Star Trek. Shatner does not sing the cheesy poofs song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 ( talk) 04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
-*-*-*-
The "Roger Ebert..." episode has two "plots": one about a planetarium, the other about Cartman appearing in a "Cheesy Poofs" commercial. The planetarium plot is the primary one, the Cheesy Poofs plot is secondary. The Cheesy Poofs plot has no connection to Star Trek. The planetarium plot, however, IS A DIRECT PARODY OF THE STAR TREK EPISODE "DAGGER OF THE MIND"!! This is a fundamental fact known to most of the world. It is extremely relevant, and important to understanding the episode -- but this fact has probably not been the subject of a "scholarly treatise". Requiring a formal "citation" makes no more sense than requiring one to verify that the episode is about a planetarium or "Cheesy Poofs". The fact that SOMEBODY erroneously stated that William Shatner sings the "Cheesy Poofs" song in no way detracts from the basic truth that the episode is based on "Dagger of the Mind"! In the past, various contributors have TRIED to make the basic point about the parody, or have tried to point out particular aspects of it; but the end result is that the editor has removed all such information. This is simply UNBE-F-ING-LIEVABLE! Again, the fact of the parody is so clear and obvious as to be beyond any conceivable doubt. Furthermore, there are a number of specific details that drive the point home:
In addition, as a further nod to Star Trek in general, the motto of the planetarium is the best Latin approximation of "Beam me up, Scotty" (there being no Latin word that directly means "beam" in the Star Trek transporter-sense).
All this overwhelming evidence notwithstanding, and with the clear indication from this that the very purpose of the planetarium story is to serve as a parody of "Dagger of the Mind", and that any proper understanding of the episode can only occur in the context of "Dagger of the Mind", no mention of this has been permitted by the editor in the "Roger Ebert..." article. The mind boggles at this incredible miscarriage of "information."!
70.17.165.223 ( talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
-*-*-*-
Would you mind explaining to ME how two items that compare in this manner can POSSIBLY NOT be connected? Are all these things just "coincidences"? They are all verifiable by examination of the entities involved. You (or whoever did it) surely arrived at the description of the plot used in the article by simply VIEWING THE EPISODE. Surely this is inadmissable "original research" just as much as anything I have stated. If the connection between them is not obvious, then NOTHING is! Would you rather stand out as the lone voice in the world that says, "There's a rumor going around that 'Roger Ebert Should...' is somehow a takeoff on Star Trek's 'Dagger of the Mind', but that's just heresay. We prefer to refrain from such wild speculations." View "Roger Ebert..." with someone else, who laughs when the girl says, "I love my work!", because THEY know it's identical to "Dagger of the Mind"; but YOU just stare and say, "Why is that funny?"
Or maybe, live dangerously. Take that slim chance that is NOT all an elaborate hoax. Draw a conclusion other than that you don't want to draw any conclusions. If you can analyze at all, such as the appropriateness of content, then at SOME POINT you OUGHT to be able to decide that some fact is "clear". 70.17.165.223 ( talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
Hmmm...I wish I knew of anything that constitutes a 'reliable source' that discusses the episode, that would either corroborate my claim, OR NOT corroborate it. Do you know of any? At any rate, it still seems to me that a person making the judgment that this requires a citation is doing just that -- making a judgment, which has the possibility of being a "bad", "poor", or "wrong" judgment, however well-intentioned! Call it an overly-strict interpretation of the "regulation".
Or, alternately, allow the parody information to remain IN, with the attached notation "citation needed". There's plenty of that going around without serious harm being done. This would save face for the article in the eyes of readers who would gasp at its appalling lack of insight regarding the episode's inspiration.
Also, I note under "Uncite Materials", which adds "Cite and/or relevance please", that:
In the end, it all boils down to being overly-sensitive on what constitutes "supposition".
70.17.165.223 ( talk) 19:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
Sorry, I was still amending. I will say that, rules being rules, they are carried out by someone interpreting them, and the interpretor could err on what makes a "supposition". On a point this important to the episode, leaving it that "the reader will be able to interpret that themselves" consiti'utes a glaring omission.
70.17.165.223 ( talk) 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
A source! A source! My kingdom for a source!
"www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTVT1Yfrmzg" - At 1:25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LupusRexRgis ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
70.17.165.223 ( talk) 04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
Matt and Trey mention the "Star Trek" reference explicitly in the introduction to this episode, included on the "Season Two" DVD set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.119.247 ( talk) 05:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Trivia, removed;
Plot reiteration;
Uncited;
Alastairward ( talk) 10:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing: why did all the SP episodes lost their trivia and reference sections? They were pretty nice, and although uncited (trivia tends to be uncited in most cases in this world, not just wiki) they were very correct and verifiable. 92.80.23.71 ( talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have found a citation for the "Dagger of the Mind" spoofing in this SP episode. I have added a sentence noting the spoof in the lead section. Ventifact ( talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I moved the page back to 'Off' following Wikipedia:WikiProject_List_of_Television_Episodes guidelines. Off is not a preposition here it is part of a two word verb so should remain capitilised. Discordance 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know why they don't like Roger Ebert and make fun of him in this episode?-- 198.105.45.201 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The description of Dr. Adams' pronuncation of "planetarium" is wrong. He doesn't say "planeh'arium", he says "planet arium" with a distinct stop after the t, as if he were talking about a planet named "Arium", as in "Welcome to the planet Arium". 70.232.82.89 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Dr.T.
I'm removing the sentence "Also, viewers can see an alien during the scene when Cartman's mother tells him not to pick his nose." I've just watched the scene several times and I see no alien. Mildly amusing vandalism? Eggsyntax ( talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the strong wording of the pop culture reference. The 'entire' episode is not 'directly' based on a Star Trek episode. While this episode is based on a Star Trek episode it has many scenes and elements that have nothing to do with Star Trek. Shatner does not sing the cheesy poofs song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 ( talk) 04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
-*-*-*-
The "Roger Ebert..." episode has two "plots": one about a planetarium, the other about Cartman appearing in a "Cheesy Poofs" commercial. The planetarium plot is the primary one, the Cheesy Poofs plot is secondary. The Cheesy Poofs plot has no connection to Star Trek. The planetarium plot, however, IS A DIRECT PARODY OF THE STAR TREK EPISODE "DAGGER OF THE MIND"!! This is a fundamental fact known to most of the world. It is extremely relevant, and important to understanding the episode -- but this fact has probably not been the subject of a "scholarly treatise". Requiring a formal "citation" makes no more sense than requiring one to verify that the episode is about a planetarium or "Cheesy Poofs". The fact that SOMEBODY erroneously stated that William Shatner sings the "Cheesy Poofs" song in no way detracts from the basic truth that the episode is based on "Dagger of the Mind"! In the past, various contributors have TRIED to make the basic point about the parody, or have tried to point out particular aspects of it; but the end result is that the editor has removed all such information. This is simply UNBE-F-ING-LIEVABLE! Again, the fact of the parody is so clear and obvious as to be beyond any conceivable doubt. Furthermore, there are a number of specific details that drive the point home:
In addition, as a further nod to Star Trek in general, the motto of the planetarium is the best Latin approximation of "Beam me up, Scotty" (there being no Latin word that directly means "beam" in the Star Trek transporter-sense).
All this overwhelming evidence notwithstanding, and with the clear indication from this that the very purpose of the planetarium story is to serve as a parody of "Dagger of the Mind", and that any proper understanding of the episode can only occur in the context of "Dagger of the Mind", no mention of this has been permitted by the editor in the "Roger Ebert..." article. The mind boggles at this incredible miscarriage of "information."!
70.17.165.223 ( talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
-*-*-*-
Would you mind explaining to ME how two items that compare in this manner can POSSIBLY NOT be connected? Are all these things just "coincidences"? They are all verifiable by examination of the entities involved. You (or whoever did it) surely arrived at the description of the plot used in the article by simply VIEWING THE EPISODE. Surely this is inadmissable "original research" just as much as anything I have stated. If the connection between them is not obvious, then NOTHING is! Would you rather stand out as the lone voice in the world that says, "There's a rumor going around that 'Roger Ebert Should...' is somehow a takeoff on Star Trek's 'Dagger of the Mind', but that's just heresay. We prefer to refrain from such wild speculations." View "Roger Ebert..." with someone else, who laughs when the girl says, "I love my work!", because THEY know it's identical to "Dagger of the Mind"; but YOU just stare and say, "Why is that funny?"
Or maybe, live dangerously. Take that slim chance that is NOT all an elaborate hoax. Draw a conclusion other than that you don't want to draw any conclusions. If you can analyze at all, such as the appropriateness of content, then at SOME POINT you OUGHT to be able to decide that some fact is "clear". 70.17.165.223 ( talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
Hmmm...I wish I knew of anything that constitutes a 'reliable source' that discusses the episode, that would either corroborate my claim, OR NOT corroborate it. Do you know of any? At any rate, it still seems to me that a person making the judgment that this requires a citation is doing just that -- making a judgment, which has the possibility of being a "bad", "poor", or "wrong" judgment, however well-intentioned! Call it an overly-strict interpretation of the "regulation".
Or, alternately, allow the parody information to remain IN, with the attached notation "citation needed". There's plenty of that going around without serious harm being done. This would save face for the article in the eyes of readers who would gasp at its appalling lack of insight regarding the episode's inspiration.
Also, I note under "Uncite Materials", which adds "Cite and/or relevance please", that:
In the end, it all boils down to being overly-sensitive on what constitutes "supposition".
70.17.165.223 ( talk) 19:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
Sorry, I was still amending. I will say that, rules being rules, they are carried out by someone interpreting them, and the interpretor could err on what makes a "supposition". On a point this important to the episode, leaving it that "the reader will be able to interpret that themselves" consiti'utes a glaring omission.
70.17.165.223 ( talk) 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
A source! A source! My kingdom for a source!
"www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTVT1Yfrmzg" - At 1:25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LupusRexRgis ( talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
70.17.165.223 ( talk) 04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223
Matt and Trey mention the "Star Trek" reference explicitly in the introduction to this episode, included on the "Season Two" DVD set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.119.247 ( talk) 05:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Trivia, removed;
Plot reiteration;
Uncited;
Alastairward ( talk) 10:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
And one more thing: why did all the SP episodes lost their trivia and reference sections? They were pretty nice, and although uncited (trivia tends to be uncited in most cases in this world, not just wiki) they were very correct and verifiable. 92.80.23.71 ( talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have found a citation for the "Dagger of the Mind" spoofing in this SP episode. I have added a sentence noting the spoof in the lead section. Ventifact ( talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)